I seriously dislike place names with -land in them. England, Ireland, Holland and so on. How weird is that? And most city names are odd too. I just don't get it. Mountains and rivers and lakes and things like that are completely ok. Lots of places have taken their names from actual names, so those don't count (Virginia, Victoria, Paris and the list goes on and on...). The name Milan has nothing to do with the city, so that's fine.

I love a lot of place names. For me, "too much" would be naming a kid something like United States Smith, which doesn't remotely sound like a name. Or something in steeped in controversy, like India. With names like England and Ireland, they aren't necessarily my taste, but I wouldn't be put off by someone else choosing something like that.

I think place names need to either be A. A name that has been used as a name enough to feel established or even better, a place that originated from a name anyway. Or B. A place with some sort of personal significance. The more obscure the place, the more important it feels to me for there to be a story behind it.

I have a surname that's a place name, and while it's only rarely used as a first name (there were more than 10, but less than 20 baby boys named it in 2011), it's still weird to think of anyone walking around with "my" surname as their first name.

Away from that, one thing I always find bizarre, is when parents use the names of places they've never been to.

I know a couple who named their daughter London, as they "love London," but they've never been. So no, they don't love London, they love the romantic ideal they have of London. I'm sure the real London is nothing like they imagine.

Furthermore, I don't know why, but I find that kind of thing pretentious as well.